Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, [7], 8, 9, 10 ] |
| Subject: The reasons why... | |
Author: Paddy (Scotland) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 10:53:07 11/22/04 Mon In reply to: Matt(UK) 's message, "Sunday Telegraph:Become British or be sacked, Commonwealth troops are told" on 22:10:06 11/21/04 Sun Any logic would dictate that the "loyal" commonwealth keep their privilages and that that CANZUK citizens should move closer rather than further away. So much for reason. Like fox-hunting, this is an issue that has been brought in because the "Tory" establishment will hate it. The most disturbing feature of the present government that they enact legislation on the basis that it will piss-off the opposition in our own country rather than concentrating on what might actually benefit the nation. This government has done nothing that a socialist government should be expected to do - e.g. attempt to help the poor. They have built less state housing than even Margret Thatcher's lot did! I am rather happy that they have not buggered-up the economy completely yet (yet because there are actually very strong underlying structural problems within the British economy and huge government borrowing) but deep down I wish that the backbenchers would vote for their socialist beliefs, rather than voting for essentially Tory policies just to keep their seats (and their salaries well beyond their earning potential). They instead are persuaded to vote against their beliefs in exchange for "anti-toff" legislation, which is of course based on the politics of twisted envy and blind prejudice, far from the enlightened ideals many of them would like to think that they have. The worst aspect of it all is that this lot think that they are naturally to be in power and that the establishment has been against them because the establishment was somehow "wrong" or put in place deliberately to hold them back. The truth though is that these people are actually dangerous loonatics with a highly suspicious agenda. They are not to be trusted one inch. Atlee played by the rules when he was in power, Blair does not. These are wasted words to this forum but examine the Iraq war, the only real recent test of loyalty between CANZUK. Canada and NZ objected, Australia and the UK agreed, as is quite possible with four nations with different parliamentary governments. If (real) socialists had been in power in OZ and the UK and tories in power in Canada and NZ then it would probably have been the other way round. However, the objectors of this group did not go out of their way to attempt to screw-over Australia and the UK. France was sending inteligence reports to Saddam's Iraq until a few days before the war. And Germany, France and Belgum coordinated efforts to block a Turkish request for extra NATO defences to defend Turkey's airspace in the run-up to the inevitable war and they refused, as they did in the first Gulf war, to fulfil an amunition supply contract. This blind trechery and disloyalty should not pass unnoticed. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Indeed... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 11:33:11 11/22/04 Mon Paddy, you hit a few nails on the head with you analysis of this Government. They are not the worst Government we have ever had. They are not even the worst Labour Government we have ever had. Their regime has not embraced the misguided principles of true socialism in the manner of previous Labour administrations, with the result in propelling our country to banana republic status. So why do I detest them so much? They are a politically amoral and deceitful Government. The only philosophy behind their regime is power itself. They cannot be trusted, and they cannot be taken at face value. Every statement and action has an ulterior motive. Now more than ever, we need a written constitution in this country – and not one written in Brussels. Our unwritten constitution has outlived its usefulness, and was adequate when Governments were chivalrous and respectful of our institutions and processes. We need new powers to curtail the Government, as our present monarch will not stand up to Tony Blair. I am horrified by what is being proposed in this week’s Queen’s speech (written by Tony of course). This session of Parliament will cast aside centuries of tradition, and put our nation on a course towards totalitarianism. This Government is fast tearing up Magna Carta. Blunkett wants to abolish juries in terrorism cases, but only in serious ones. So who defines what is serious, the same people who judged fox hunting as worthy of the Parliament Act? We are getting to a situation where this Government could conceivable use the Parliament Act to extent their electoral term in office. What defines the five year term? It’s not a written constitution, but the precedence of law, and acts of parliament. These are things this Government has already demonstrated a total lack of respect for. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: and... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 11:46:43 11/22/04 Mon The 1949 Parliament Act has been used four times in total, three of which, have been by Tony Blair's Government! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: What were the other three occasions under Mr Blair? | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 11:55:02 11/22/04 Mon [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: ... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 11:57:50 11/22/04 Mon 1999 European Parliamentary Elections Act 2000 Sexual Offences Amendment Act 2004 Hunting Bill [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: What were the 1999 and 2000 pieces of legislation about? | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:00:23 11/22/04 Mon [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: ... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:10:38 11/22/04 Mon The 1999 regionalisation of the UK for the Euro elections and the reduction in age of consent amongst other things. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Hm. | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:17:56 11/22/04 Mon I can vaguely see some justification in the use of the Parliament Act for those two. The first one deals with the electoral system, and the second with consolidating the individual rights of minorities. But using it for foxhunting strikes me as being for the exact opposite purpose: restricting the individual rights of minorities. A bit sinister, that. The thought occurs, though, that if they wanted to make the age of consent the same for homosexuals as heterosexuals, then they could have proposed raising the heterosexual one into conformity with the homosexual one, i.e., 18. Alternatively, they could have gone with the Portuguese option and made both so young that no-one is worried about equality, since 12 and 13 year olds are very rarely imbued with the "Wilkes and Liberty" rhetoric! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Written Constitution | |
|
Author: David (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:40:16 11/22/04 Mon I completely agree that you need a written constitution. Written constitution's limit extremist governments and ensure that governments do not abuse their powers (as is the present day case in Britain). It is frankly quite scary some of the things Tony Blair has got away with - particulary on EU related issues, such behaviour would never be tolerated in Australia. We have never really had a government that has been grossly disrespectful to our institutions and processes in the way of Tony Blair (except perhaps the 1972-1975 Whitlam government). The Hawke and Keating governments were to some degree, although what they could do was limited by the Australian constitution and thus the consent of the Australian people, they did not inflict a large amount of damage. I am also concerned about new legislation being introduced (particulary in the area of terrorism) that intrudes upon civil liberties, for this reason I support a bill of rights. Britain's parliamentary system demands that the Monarch stand up to protect the people from an extremist government, this is clearly unacceptable in a modern world which is why Britain needs a constitution and bill of rights. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Bills of rights... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:46:17 11/22/04 Mon We have a bill of rights - indeed, we have many such things, the principle ones on the statue book being Magna Carta and the 1689 Bill. The trouble is that, without a written consitution, any Act can be made which supercedes these pieces of legislation. When Hurd signed the Maastricht Treaty, Richard Body and Rodney Atkinson tried to have him indicted for Treason according to the presrciptions of various of these Acts. The courts threw out the case, on the grounds that the unwritten 'constitution' means that any subsequent piece of legislation simply cancels out any previous contradicting ones. As has been stated here, this works fine when we have a moderate government - as we have always had until now. But now that our way of life and independence etc are under threat, there is a very strong case for having a written constitution. Write it down, nail the buggers to it, and they can't fool around with it. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Oh My God! | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:03:37 11/22/04 Mon The Queen’s speech contains some more horrors. In addition to the juryless trials, Blunket is seeking to bring prosecutions on "suspected" foreign terrorists, despite the fact that they have committed no crime in the eyes of the law. If the terrorists are seeking to destroy our democracy, they are succeeding. This is a literal case of the blind leading the blind! If foreign suspects are believed to be up to no good, then by all means deport them, but stop screwing around with our legal system. Of course, we can’t deport them, because that we contravene their “human rights”. What a farce! I have a sneaky suspicion though that the European Court of Human rights will come into play here. This is something that the Labour Government couldn’t wait to sign up for. Hopefully we will get to see them hoisted by their own petard! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: The way to preserve democracy is not to stuff it under the carpet everytime it gets annoying. Both the US and the UK could learn from this. | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:24:16 11/22/04 Mon [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Petards | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:35:15 11/22/04 Mon I believe that this has already happened. Do you remember a few years ago, when the government signed up to the European Court of Human Rights (ECRH), and the next month legislated to detail all asylum seekers in secure 'camps' while their applications were considered? It didn't matter that the camps had free food, free housing, satellite TV, free English lessons, free solicitors, comfy rooms (frankly I think I'd like to live in one), because, according to ECHR legislation, not allowing them out of the extensive, land-scaped, park-like grounds by enclosing it with a high-fense contravened their human rights, since it had not been proved at this point that they had committed the 'crime' of illegal entry. So, they had to let them all out (they've all disappeared, of course), and demolish the camps which cost hundreds of millions of pounds... That, I think, is being hoist by one's own petard. But did the blighters learn? Nope. Here they are, trying something similar with terrorists, and exactly the same thing will happen: convicted in London, cleared in Strasbourg, and so let free, because, of course, as members of ECHR Strasbourg takes precedence. It is ironic that, for once, I think that ECHR would be in the right: you can't muck around with trial by jury and habeas corpus... it's just not a straight bat. Such a shame that ECHR's other rulings are all awful. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Oh yes, and... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:39:03 11/22/04 Mon Interesting parallel with the House of Lords reform (another iniquitious piece of legislation). It happened just after the H of L gave a favourable ruling about the extradition of that bastard Pinochet. Labour said that, no matter that the old Lords had, in this case, done the right thing, it didn't alter the fundamental principle that it shouldn't be them doing it. I think that this could apply to the ECHR's presumption in stopping Blunkett from imposing totalitarian South African style anti-terrorist measures. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: How ironic then... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 11:50:42 11/23/04 Tue ... that we should come to rely on European institutions in order to preserve our legal charter! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: to be fair, Keating introduced the reforms that have made the Australian economy competitive over the last two decades | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:11:46 11/22/04 Mon [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Keating | |
|
Author: David (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 02:07:21 11/23/04 Tue True, in the area of economic policy the Hawke and Keating governments have an impressive record and pursued important reforms (although these reforms only really reversed the damage inflicted by successive post-war governments). Unlike Britain, most of the economic reform in Australia has been pursued by the Labor party. In other areas of policy, however, such as respect for the Monarchy and other institutions, their record is less impressive. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |